The brief reflections above by engineer Mr. Alvi seem counter-pointed to the excellent concepts postulated in the paper "Philosophy of Engineering: What it is and Why It Matters," J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2015, 141(3): 02514003. The authors noted that the popular perception was that engineering is sort of a straightforward rational solution of technical problems. But life-lessons teach the very opposite, i.e., their solutions are inherently indeterminate.
They state "They do not yield definitive answers just by following rigid rules."

 So, I suggest we give the issues relative to the points raised by Ms. Gibson, at the very least, the same premise as we work together to collaborate, communicate and cooperate to address this complex and long overdue issue.

 Respectfully,

Bill

The brief reflections above by engineer Mr. Alvi seem counter-pointed to the excellent concepts postulated in the paper "Philosophy of Engineering: What it is and Why It Matters," J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2015, 141(3): 02514003. The authors noted that the popular perception was that engineering is sort of a straightforward rational solution of technical problems. But life-lessons teach the very opposite, i.e., their solutions are inherently indeterminate.
They state "They do not yield definitive answers just by following rigid rules."

 So, I suggest we give the issues relative to the points raised by Ms. Gibson, at the very least, the same premise as we work together to collaborate, communicate and cooperate to address this complex and long overdue issue.

 Respectfully,

Bill

Well, then let's go back to what Ms. Gibson's intent was in starting this thread, i.e., what it appears she was looking for, from those who would contribute.

• Peyton's Posted Tread's Questions:

1. What do you think of these findings?
2. Do you think the industry is moving to fix it?
3. Where do you see progress, and?
4. Where do you think we can be better?

And for those who wish to first review research to support assertions of clear and present decades of compensation and promotional bias against women, compared to men in science and engineering, I refer you to the "Instant Gratification" available within the resources of "Google Scholar." A few "Quick Hits" follow.

Penalties and premiums: The impact of gender, marriage, and parenthood on faculty salaries in science, engineering and mathematics (SEM) and non-SEM fields

Beyond Gender Schemas: Improving the Advancement of Women in Academia

Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap

Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students

Female Faculty in Male-Dominated Fields: Law, Medicine, and Engineering  

IMAGE OF ENGINEERING AMONG CANADIAN SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS  

p.s. Are you really going to continue to argue that first you need more data to support the reality that women are, have been,
and will continue to run 2^nd to men unless and until they stand together and say out loud:

"We're mad and we're not going to take it any longer!"

Respectfully,

Bill Hayden Jr,

Son of Mary Ellen Deady Hayden, a first-generation Irish immigrant, who was orphaned at the age of 6, placed in an Italian Roman Catholic Orphanage run by Mother Francis Cabrini, who was later 'Sainted.'

My mom did not, and would never have put up with what our professional women accept, so many in silence.

The brief reflections above by engineer Mr. Alvi seem counter-pointed to the excellent concepts postulated in the paper "Philosophy of Engineering: What it is and Why It Matters," J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2015, 141(3): 02514003. The authors noted that the popular perception was that engineering is sort of a straightforward rational solution of technical problems. But life-lessons teach the very opposite, i.e., their solutions are inherently indeterminate.
They state "They do not yield definitive answers just by following rigid rules."

 So, I suggest we give the issues relative to the points raised by Ms. Gibson, at the very least, the same premise as we work together to collaborate, communicate and cooperate to address this complex and long overdue issue.

 Respectfully,

Bill

Well, then let's go back to what Ms. Gibson's intent was in starting this thread, i.e., what it appears she was looking for, from those who would contribute.

• Peyton's Posted Tread's Questions:

1. What do you think of these findings?
2. Do you think the industry is moving to fix it?
3. Where do you see progress, and?
4. Where do you think we can be better?

And for those who wish to first review research to support assertions of clear and present decades of compensation and promotional bias against women, compared to men in science and engineering, I refer you to the "Instant Gratification" available within the resources of "Google Scholar." A few "Quick Hits" follow.

Penalties and premiums: The impact of gender, marriage, and parenthood on faculty salaries in science, engineering and mathematics (SEM) and non-SEM fields

Beyond Gender Schemas: Improving the Advancement of Women in Academia

Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap

Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students

Female Faculty in Male-Dominated Fields: Law, Medicine, and Engineering  

IMAGE OF ENGINEERING AMONG CANADIAN SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS  

p.s. Are you really going to continue to argue that first you need more data to support the reality that women are, have been,
and will continue to run 2^nd to men unless and until they stand together and say out loud:

"We're mad and we're not going to take it any longer!"

Respectfully,

Bill Hayden Jr,

Son of Mary Ellen Deady Hayden, a first-generation Irish immigrant, who was orphaned at the age of 6, placed in an Italian Roman Catholic Orphanage run by Mother Francis Cabrini, who was later 'Sainted.'

My mom did not, and would never have put up with what our professional women accept, so many in silence.

The brief reflections above by engineer Mr. Alvi seem counter-pointed to the excellent concepts postulated in the paper "Philosophy of Engineering: What it is and Why It Matters," J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2015, 141(3): 02514003. The authors noted that the popular perception was that engineering is sort of a straightforward rational solution of technical problems. But life-lessons teach the very opposite, i.e., their solutions are inherently indeterminate.
They state "They do not yield definitive answers just by following rigid rules."

 So, I suggest we give the issues relative to the points raised by Ms. Gibson, at the very least, the same premise as we work together to collaborate, communicate and cooperate to address this complex and long overdue issue.

 Respectfully,

Bill

Here are a couple of other reports that have similar conclusions to the ones in @Peyton Gibson's original post on this thread:

1. The 2019 Women in the Workforce report., which @William Hayden shared. One of the most interesting sections is about "Only's" (see page 52 in the report, which is on page 28 of the .pdf). Per the report, "only's" are much more likely to occur in tech and engineering. An only is defined as a woman who is often or usually the only one on her team or in the room. The report also highlights that what many would consider "personal effectiveness traits", are perceived differently if that trait originates with a man or a woman of equal experience. According to the report: "Women who are Onlys are having a notably difficult experience at work. They're far more likely to experience microaggressions than women who work with other women. They are more than twice as likely to be asked to prove their competence, over three times more likely to be mistaken for someone more junior, and about twice as likely to be subjected to demeaning or disrespectful remarks........"

2. The NCSEA SE3 committee, which studies structural engineering retention and engagement. Here's a link to the latest posted pay report: http://www.se3project.org/uploads/8/9/5/2/89527265/se3_2016_pay_report.pdf. The 2016 report link shows the gender pay gap at $27,500. The pay gap is very small at the staff/entry level (i.e. the first job), and starts expanding at the first promotion level (project engineer in this case), with the largest gap being at the highest levels. That very much aligns with the ASCE survey data. That is also the same thing found in the Women in the Work Force report, across the board in all industries. And yes, it is my understanding specific to the SE3 report that rigorous data analysis has been used and that they have controlled for all other factors noted by the many posters on this thread when the pay gap was determined.

There is more enough data to show that there is something to the gender pay gap in civil engineering when considered at a macro-level. Perhaps we don't know exactly what that dollar amount is, but does the exact amount really matter if the trend is there?

I am troubled by some of the opinions on this thread implying that somehow civil engineers are above both societal trends and other engineering disciplines in this area.  I am also troubled by some of the data I've seen (for example from Zweiggroup's surveys) indicating that something like 90% of AEC principals are male and 60% of those don't believe there is an issue with diversity in the AEC industry. That makes it awfully hard to even talk about any of these issues, including a pay gap, if we won't consider that it even might exist.

To be clear, there are some firms ahead of the curve. Additionally, I don't think someone sat down and thought "well, as an industry/society we are just going to pay the women less than the men." There are a lot of factors at play. For example, from a statistical standpoint, women are less likely to negotiate, are less likely to get a "yes" when they do, and are more likely to experience backlash (from both genders of bosses) for even attempting to negotiate. That's fairly easy to fix: Negotiate, and when it becomes "normal" for everyone to negotiate, the backlash will cease.

The bigger - and much more daunting - challenge is tackling what some might think of as "personal effectiveness" traits. In many firms, these traits are often the unwritten rules required for promotions and higher-level positions, and are often subjective, poorly defined, and rooted in some sort of unconscious bias that we don't acknowledge.

As a hypothetical example: Let's say you are in private consulting, and almost all your firm's clients are white men (which is statistically likely, especially if your clients are contractors or architects). Let's also assume that your firm's clients appear to generally treat everyone - all genders and races - with respect. Yet, unless a particular client is a statistical anomaly, he is much more likely to accept the competence of a "stereotypical engineer" (i.e. a white male) at face value than that of an equally qualified young woman, a minority woman, or a minority man. Not because he's out to get anyone, or consciously thinks that way, but because of unconscious biases that we all have by virtue of our humanity.

Now, imagine that there is a "stereotypical engineer" and an equally experienced minority woman who are both project managers, and are both managing different projects for that same client. It's likely (at least from all the data available around women in the workforce) that from the onset of a project, the more stereotypical engineer may have an easier go of the project than the minority woman, regardless of the specific project challenges. That minority woman is going to need to re-prove her competence at every turn, in a way that the stereotypical engineer does not, simply due to societal stereotypes and unconscious bias. She's going to have to spend extra time (and project budget) to demonstrate her competence, while the "stereotypical engineer" is more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt. It will show up in the way she is received in meetings and in the ways her decisions are questioned more often. It will show up in something as basic as the number of emails she has to answer.

Now, when that client comes back to their boss with raving reviews for the male project manager, and reports back that the minority woman was "technically excellent, but I just didn't hit it off with her," and that happens over and over again throughout both of their careers, who do you think is going to eventually be promoted and paid more? When the boss hears this feedback, who is he or she going to be most likely to view as having leadership potential, and provide mentorship to? Who is going to have an easier time bringing in client work in this scenario (required for the highest level positions)? Where is the line here between "personal effectiveness" and unconscious bias? 

The data does show the pay gap improving. Two things everyone can do to close it more quickly.

1. For individuals – Learn to negotiate, it's a skill that will serve you well not just in salaries but many areas. 
2. For organizations –Clearly define metrics for success in a title or role, as well as what is required to advance to the next level. Once defined, these should be transparent to everyone in the organization. Then, make your base salary grades consistent with titles/roles. Those with the same titles should be the paid the same base salary. If the performance (as measured by transparent metrics) of one employee warrants a higher bonus, so be it.

Here are a couple of other reports that have similar conclusions to the ones in @Peyton Gibson's original post on this thread:

1. The 2019 Women in the Workforce report., which @William Hayden shared. One of the most interesting sections is about "Only's" (see page 52 in the report, which is on page 28 of the .pdf). Per the report, "only's" are much more likely to occur in tech and engineering. An only is defined as a woman who is often or usually the only one on her team or in the room. The report also highlights that what many would consider "personal effectiveness traits", are perceived differently if that trait originates with a man or a woman of equal experience. According to the report: "Women who are Onlys are having a notably difficult experience at work. They're far more likely to experience microaggressions than women who work with other women. They are more than twice as likely to be asked to prove their competence, over three times more likely to be mistaken for someone more junior, and about twice as likely to be subjected to demeaning or disrespectful remarks........"

2. The NCSEA SE3 committee, which studies structural engineering retention and engagement. Here's a link to the latest posted pay report: http://www.se3project.org/uploads/8/9/5/2/89527265/se3_2016_pay_report.pdf. The 2016 report link shows the gender pay gap at $27,500. The pay gap is very small at the staff/entry level (i.e. the first job), and starts expanding at the first promotion level (project engineer in this case), with the largest gap being at the highest levels. That very much aligns with the ASCE survey data. That is also the same thing found in the Women in the Work Force report, across the board in all industries. And yes, it is my understanding specific to the SE3 report that rigorous data analysis has been used and that they have controlled for all other factors noted by the many posters on this thread when the pay gap was determined.

There is more than enough data to show that there is something to the gender pay gap in civil engineering when considered at a macro-level. Perhaps we don't know exactly what that dollar amount is, but does the exact amount really matter if the trend is there?

I am troubled by some of the opinions on this thread implying that somehow civil engineers are above both societal trends and other engineering disciplines in this area.  I am also troubled by some of the data I've seen (for example from Zweiggroup's surveys) indicating that something like 90% of AEC principals are male and 60% of those don't believe there is an issue with diversity in the AEC industry. That makes it awfully hard to even talk about any of these issues, including a pay gap, if we won't consider that it even might exist.

To be clear, there are some firms ahead of the curve. Additionally, I don't think someone sat down and thought "well, as an industry/society we are just going to pay the women less than the men." There are a lot of factors at play. For example, from a statistical standpoint, women are less likely to negotiate, are less likely to get a "yes" when they do, and are more likely to experience backlash (from both genders of bosses) for even attempting to negotiate. That's fairly easy to fix: Negotiate, and when it becomes "normal" for everyone to negotiate, the backlash will cease.

The bigger - and much more daunting - challenge is tackling what some might think of as "personal effectiveness" traits. In many firms, these traits are often the unwritten rules required for promotions and higher-level positions, and are often subjective, poorly defined, and rooted in some sort of unconscious bias that we don't acknowledge.

As a hypothetical example: Let's say you are in private consulting, and almost all your firm's clients are white men (which is statistically likely, especially if your clients are contractors or architects). Let's also assume that your firm's clients appear to generally treat everyone - all genders and races - with respect. Yet, unless a particular client is a statistical anomaly, he is much more likely to accept the competence of a "stereotypical engineer" (i.e. a white male) at face value than that of an equally qualified young woman, a minority woman, or a minority man. Not because he's out to get anyone, or consciously thinks that way, but because of unconscious biases that we all have by virtue of our humanity.

Now, imagine that there is a "stereotypical engineer" and an equally experienced minority woman who are both project managers, and are both managing different projects for that same client. It's likely (at least from all the data available around women in the workforce) that from the onset of a project, the more stereotypical engineer may have an easier go of the project than the minority woman, regardless of the specific project challenges. That minority woman is going to need to re-prove her competence at every turn, in a way that the stereotypical engineer does not, simply due to societal stereotypes and unconscious bias. She's going to have to spend extra time (and project budget) to demonstrate her competence, while the "stereotypical engineer" is more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt. It will show up in the way she is received in meetings and in the ways her decisions are questioned more often. It will show up in something as basic as the number of emails she has to answer.

Now, when that client comes back to their boss with raving reviews for the male project manager, and reports back that the minority woman was "technically excellent, but I just didn't hit it off with her," and that happens over and over again throughout both of their careers, who do you think is going to eventually be promoted and paid more? When the boss hears this feedback, who is he or she going to be most likely to view as having leadership potential, and provide mentorship to? Who is going to have an easier time bringing in client work in this scenario (required for the highest level positions)? Where is the line here between "personal effectiveness" and unconscious bias? 

The data does show the pay gap improving. Two things everyone can do to close it more quickly.

1. For individuals – Learn to negotiate, it's a skill that will serve you well not just in salaries but many areas. 
2. For organizations –Clearly define metrics for success in a title or role, as well as what is required to advance to the next level. Once defined, these should be transparent to everyone in the organization. Then, make your base salary grades consistent with titles/roles. Those with the same titles should be the paid the same base salary. If the performance (as measured by transparent metrics) of one employee warrants a higher bonus, so be it.

Here are a couple of other reports that have similar conclusions to the ones in @Peyton Gibson's original post on this thread:

1. The 2019 Women in the Workforce report., which @William Hayden shared. One of the most interesting sections is about "Only's" (see page 52 in the report, which is on page 28 of the .pdf). Per the report, "only's" are much more likely to occur in tech and engineering. An only is defined as a woman who is often or usually the only one on her team or in the room. The report also highlights that what many would consider "personal effectiveness traits", are perceived differently if that trait originates with a man or a woman of equal experience. According to the report: "Women who are Onlys are having a notably difficult experience at work. They're far more likely to experience microaggressions than women who work with other women. They are more than twice as likely to be asked to prove their competence, over three times more likely to be mistaken for someone more junior, and about twice as likely to be subjected to demeaning or disrespectful remarks........"

2. The NCSEA SE3 committee, which studies structural engineering retention and engagement. Here's a link to the latest posted pay report: http://www.se3project.org/uploads/8/9/5/2/89527265/se3_2016_pay_report.pdf. The 2016 report link shows the gender pay gap at $27,500. The pay gap is very small at the staff/entry level (i.e. the first job), and starts expanding at the first promotion level (project engineer in this case), with the largest gap being at the highest levels. That very much aligns with the ASCE survey data. That is also the same thing found in the Women in the Work Force report, across the board in all industries. And yes, it is my understanding specific to the SE3 report that rigorous data analysis has been used and that they have controlled for all other factors noted by the many posters on this thread when the pay gap was determined.

There is more than enough data to show that there is something to the gender pay gap in civil engineering when considered at a macro-level. Perhaps we don't know exactly what that dollar amount is, but does the exact amount really matter if the trend is there?

I am troubled by some of the opinions on this thread implying that somehow civil engineers are above both societal trends and other engineering disciplines in this area.  I am also troubled by some of the data I've seen (for example from Zweiggroup's surveys) indicating that something like 90% of AEC principals are male and 60% of those don't believe there is an issue with diversity in the AEC industry. That makes it awfully hard to even talk about any of these issues, including a pay gap, if we won't consider that it even might exist.

To be clear, there are some firms ahead of the curve. Additionally, I don't think someone sat down and thought "well, as an industry/society we are just going to pay the women less than the men." There are a lot of factors at play. For example, from a statistical standpoint, women are less likely to negotiate, are less likely to get a "yes" when they do, and are more likely to experience backlash (from both genders of bosses) for even attempting to negotiate. That's fairly easy to fix: Negotiate, and when it becomes "normal" for everyone to negotiate, the backlash will cease.

The bigger - and much more daunting - challenge is tackling what some might think of as "personal effectiveness" traits. In many firms, these traits are often the unwritten rules required for promotions and higher-level positions, and are often subjective, poorly defined, and rooted in some sort of unconscious bias that we don't acknowledge.

As a hypothetical example: Let's say you are in private consulting, and almost all your firm's clients are white men (which is statistically likely, especially if your clients are contractors or architects). Let's also assume that your firm's clients appear to generally treat everyone - all genders and races - with respect. Yet, unless a particular client is a statistical anomaly, he is much more likely to accept the competence of a "stereotypical engineer" (i.e. a white male) at face value than that of an equally qualified young woman, a minority woman, or a minority man. Not because he's out to get anyone, or consciously thinks that way, but because of unconscious biases that we all have by virtue of our humanity.

Now, imagine that there is a "stereotypical engineer" and an equally experienced minority woman who are both project managers, and are both managing different projects for that same client. It's likely (at least from all the data available around women in the workforce) that from the onset of a project, the more stereotypical engineer may have an easier go of the project than the minority woman, regardless of the specific project challenges. That minority woman is going to need to re-prove her competence at every turn, in a way that the stereotypical engineer does not, simply due to societal stereotypes and unconscious bias. She's going to have to spend extra time (and project budget) to demonstrate her competence, while the "stereotypical engineer" is more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt. It will show up in the way she is received in meetings and in the ways her decisions are questioned more often. It will show up in something as basic as the number of emails she has to answer.

Now, when that client comes back to their boss with raving reviews for the male project manager, and reports back that the minority woman was "technically excellent, but I just didn't hit it off with her," and that happens over and over again throughout both of their careers, who do you think is going to eventually be promoted and paid more? When the boss hears this feedback, who is he or she going to be most likely to view as having leadership potential, and provide mentorship to? Who is going to have an easier time bringing in client work in this scenario (required for the highest level positions)? Where is the line here between "personal effectiveness" and unconscious bias? 

The data does show the pay gap improving. Two things everyone can do to close it more quickly.

1. For individuals – Learn to negotiate, it's a skill that will serve you well not just in salaries but many areas. 
2. For organizations –Clearly define metrics for success in a title or role, as well as what is required to advance to the next level. Once defined, these should be transparent to everyone in the organization. Then, make your base salary grades consistent with titles/roles. Those with the same titles should be the paid the same base salary. If the performance (as measured by transparent metrics) of one employee warrants a higher bonus, so be it.

"Individual with a significant portion of the firm's shares, has control over the direction of the business within their sector, defines the corporate mission and values, heavy involvement in client and business development initiatives, proposals, and marketing activities"

Here are a couple of other reports that have similar conclusions to the ones in @Peyton Gibson's original post on this thread:

1. The 2019 Women in the Workforce report., which @William Hayden shared. One of the most interesting sections is about "Only's" (see page 52 in the report, which is on page 28 of the .pdf). Per the report, "only's" are much more likely to occur in tech and engineering. An only is defined as a woman who is often or usually the only one on her team or in the room. The report also highlights that what many would consider "personal effectiveness traits", are perceived differently if that trait originates with a man or a woman of equal experience. According to the report: "Women who are Onlys are having a notably difficult experience at work. They're far more likely to experience microaggressions than women who work with other women. They are more than twice as likely to be asked to prove their competence, over three times more likely to be mistaken for someone more junior, and about twice as likely to be subjected to demeaning or disrespectful remarks........"

2. The NCSEA SE3 committee, which studies structural engineering retention and engagement. Here's a link to the latest posted pay report: http://www.se3project.org/uploads/8/9/5/2/89527265/se3_2016_pay_report.pdf. The 2016 report link shows the gender pay gap at $27,500. The pay gap is very small at the staff/entry level (i.e. the first job), and starts expanding at the first promotion level (project engineer in this case), with the largest gap being at the highest levels. That very much aligns with the ASCE survey data. That is also the same thing found in the Women in the Work Force report, across the board in all industries. And yes, it is my understanding specific to the SE3 report that rigorous data analysis has been used and that they have controlled for all other factors noted by the many posters on this thread when the pay gap was determined.

There is more than enough data to show that there is something to the gender pay gap in civil engineering when considered at a macro-level. Perhaps we don't know exactly what that dollar amount is, but does the exact amount really matter if the trend is there?

I am troubled by some of the opinions on this thread implying that somehow civil engineers are above both societal trends and other engineering disciplines in this area.  I am also troubled by some of the data I've seen (for example from Zweiggroup's surveys) indicating that something like 90% of AEC principals are male and 60% of those don't believe there is an issue with diversity in the AEC industry. That makes it awfully hard to even talk about any of these issues, including a pay gap, if we won't consider that it even might exist.

To be clear, there are some firms ahead of the curve. Additionally, I don't think someone sat down and thought "well, as an industry/society we are just going to pay the women less than the men." There are a lot of factors at play. For example, from a statistical standpoint, women are less likely to negotiate, are less likely to get a "yes" when they do, and are more likely to experience backlash (from both genders of bosses) for even attempting to negotiate. That's fairly easy to fix: Negotiate, and when it becomes "normal" for everyone to negotiate, the backlash will cease.

The bigger - and much more daunting - challenge is tackling what some might think of as "personal effectiveness" traits. In many firms, these traits are often the unwritten rules required for promotions and higher-level positions, and are often subjective, poorly defined, and rooted in some sort of unconscious bias that we don't acknowledge.

As a hypothetical example: Let's say you are in private consulting, and almost all your firm's clients are white men (which is statistically likely, especially if your clients are contractors or architects). Let's also assume that your firm's clients appear to generally treat everyone - all genders and races - with respect. Yet, unless a particular client is a statistical anomaly, he is much more likely to accept the competence of a "stereotypical engineer" (i.e. a white male) at face value than that of an equally qualified young woman, a minority woman, or a minority man. Not because he's out to get anyone, or consciously thinks that way, but because of unconscious biases that we all have by virtue of our humanity.

Now, imagine that there is a "stereotypical engineer" and an equally experienced minority woman who are both project managers, and are both managing different projects for that same client. It's likely (at least from all the data available around women in the workforce) that from the onset of a project, the more stereotypical engineer may have an easier go of the project than the minority woman, regardless of the specific project challenges. That minority woman is going to need to re-prove her competence at every turn, in a way that the stereotypical engineer does not, simply due to societal stereotypes and unconscious bias. She's going to have to spend extra time (and project budget) to demonstrate her competence, while the "stereotypical engineer" is more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt. It will show up in the way she is received in meetings and in the ways her decisions are questioned more often. It will show up in something as basic as the number of emails she has to answer.

Now, when that client comes back to their boss with raving reviews for the male project manager, and reports back that the minority woman was "technically excellent, but I just didn't hit it off with her," and that happens over and over again throughout both of their careers, who do you think is going to eventually be promoted and paid more? When the boss hears this feedback, who is he or she going to be most likely to view as having leadership potential, and provide mentorship to? Who is going to have an easier time bringing in client work in this scenario (required for the highest level positions)? Where is the line here between "personal effectiveness" and unconscious bias? 

The data does show the pay gap improving. Two things everyone can do to close it more quickly.

1. For individuals – Learn to negotiate, it's a skill that will serve you well not just in salaries but many areas. 
2. For organizations –Clearly define metrics for success in a title or role, as well as what is required to advance to the next level. Once defined, these should be transparent to everyone in the organization. Then, make your base salary grades consistent with titles/roles. Those with the same titles should be the paid the same base salary. If the performance (as measured by transparent metrics) of one employee warrants a higher bonus, so be it.